Man burned alive in LA street.

Interestingly and sadly enough, i was speaking to a hospital porter the other day and he said it's got worse here in the UK. He said back in the
80's and early 90's the real gansgters just attacked and killed each other, but now the wannabe gangster kids are attacking and killing anybody,
whether they are caught up in the madness or not...

I too would concur with your thinking on this, but nevertheless, whilst reading about the 'attack' comprehension flees the mind, and inertial
incredulity sets in.

Attacks like these really injure any vestige of confidence in the human species. Here in the UK, senseless unprovoked attacks have been equally
documented, and equally cast a pall of immeasurable darkness in one's heart.

Remember last year's gang attack upon Robert Maltby and Sophie Lancaster in a park in Bacup? They were a young couple whom identified themselves with
the Goth scene, and it was because of their dress that they were viciously attacked. Robert fell under a barrage of blows and kicks to the body and
head, and as Sophie screamed for it to stop whilst cradling her boyfriend's head in her arms, she too was attacked, and was kicked to death.

I am not a man of violence, nor do I like to allow angry hate to bubble up and fester in my mind, but I can tell you now, I would've felt justified
in having the entire gang lined up and shot or hung. This is how I felt upon learning of this attack. I cannot reason with empathy to gain something
of a understanding of justification for attacks like these to occur...there is none. Yet, within the mind's of the perpetrators there must be, there
must be some occulted justification within their minds that motivates them to carry out their cruelty and barbarism? Reason simply fails humanity to
encompasse the inhumane.

You just answered your own question: you stated that even though you are a peaceful person, there are circumstances under which you have no qualms in
executing people. That means in a person's mind, certain views can be held which makes it OK to do something horrible (murder). The people that
beat up the couple clearly had some explanation in their mind that made it OK to kill those folks. Just as you can have one in your head that makes
it OK to kill the people who killed the others.

I'm remaining neutral in this discussion (my opinions don't matter here), I'm merely holding a mirror up to your espoused views in order to show
you something you seem to have missed.

No, Dave, I didn't. I feel you are deliberately miscontextualizing the sense of my meaning, perhaps because you believe you perceive something of
hypocrisy within my post?

The qualifier and context of this statement...

I would've felt justified in having the entire gang lined up and shot or hung.

is the
statement that follows it...

This is how I felt upon learning of this attack.

The point concedes the issue on 'justification' not
'provocation'. It also brings to highlight the difference between 'feeling' and 'do-ing', that I am not inured to feeling fury and rage...would
I not be less human if I didn't? However, I would be hypocritical if I was to actually carry out the perceived justification for retribution upon
them. I would be acting upon a purely emotional response...which is why I end my post with...

And they're still trying to convince us that violence in TV and movies and violent video games have no effect ... yeah right.

Another thing that I believe contributes to this is addiction to "excitement" and the need for instant and/or constant gratification. From an early
age children are constantly being stimulated and we are led to believe this is a good thing. I do not think it is. I remember spending hours just
sitting out under a tree watching nature and maybe daydreaming, or spending time in my room with a book or drawing .. quiet time ...

When does a kid get quiet time these days? If he's not playing a video game, the TV is on, or at the very least the music is blaring from speakers,
headphones, earpips, etc. Every new gadget is designed to constantly provide a high level of entertainment. I think human brains get "addicted" to
this constant high level of stimulation and then two things happen:

1) It becomes impossible for the person to just be quiet and be still for any length of time without external stimulation/entertainment.
2) Increasingly higher levels of stimulation are required to actually get a "thrill," thus the escalation to taking real risks and then real
violence.

I was just going to comment in general but since we have by no means concluded our earlier discussion i suppose you will do.

Originally posted by Heike
And they're still trying to convince us that violence in TV and movies and violent video games have no effect ... yeah right.

The problem being that a few centuries ago tens of thousands of women were burned for being 'witches'. How many are being burnt to death today and
aren't their crimes at least more often 'real'? Did they have violent games and or entertainment back then too?

Another thing that I believe contributes to this is addiction to "excitement" and the need for instant and/or constant gratification.

There is no such need other than the one's the MSM and schooling system is attempting to propagate. Again some insist on attributing humanity with as
many negative qualities as they can think up.

From an early age children are constantly being stimulated and we are led to believe this is a good thing.

It is and for obvious reasons depending on what your idea of stimulation is. Some people apparently think sitting your child down in front of the TV
is 'good stimulation' and it's nor surprising given the fact that they are both at work and far too tired and worn out to care.

I do not think it is. I remember spending hours just sitting out under a tree watching nature and maybe daydreaming, or spending time in my
room with a book or drawing .. quiet time ...

Right and the fact that i could do the same without losing hope for and respect in humanity kinda proves the point that everyone thinks their method
of growing up is best.

When does a kid get quiet time these days? If he's not playing a video game, the TV is on, or at the very least the music is blaring from
speakers, headphones, earpips, etc.

But why would a capitalist society provide kids with that? Isn't the aim to have them constantly busy earning profits for their masters? Who do you
think thought up this mess of a system? Do you think anyone WANTS this?

Every new gadget is designed to constantly provide a high level of entertainment.

Only those aimed to provide entertainment....

I think human brains get "addicted" to this constant high level of stimulation and then two things happen:

No it does not get addicted to it but it does become the expected standard which is why such people will later feel discomfort after a little quite
time. Obviously they will get over this provided they keep at it but then no one gets that many sick days.

1) It becomes impossible for the person to just be quiet and be still for any length of time without external
stimulation/entertainment.

Not impossible but certainly not something they are accustomed to coping with it. It's basically sensory deprivation of sorts and based on what they
are deprived of it may or may not be a actual bad thing.

2) Increasingly higher levels of stimulation are required to actually get a "thrill," thus the escalation to taking real risks and then real
violence.

Pop culture logic in action. Violent video games = the invasion of Iraq.

just my .02

I could tell. Frankly i hate threads where the main purpose seems to be to bash humanity especially considering the average age of those doing it. I
mean i can argue with a old cynic who realises that he wasted his life attempting the capitalist dream but what respect can you have for twenty year
old's that just digs in and attacks 'human nature' as if they know a damned thing about it?

Using the exception to define the rule is a LOGICAL FALLACY.

How about trying to understand what I'm actually saying before attacking me?

To try to put it in more of a simplistic nutshell for you, I'm saying that I think the constant overstimulation of people (especially children) by
various electronic media is at least partially responsible for the increase in "senseless" random violence, i. e. "thrill killings."

I'm saying that providing children with "instant gratification" throughout their childhood warps them to expect it and need it, which in turn leads
to frustration and anger when they don't get it. "You can't always get what you want" is not just a good song but a good lesson. Too many
people haven't learned it.

That's all. And how is that bashing "human nature"? And FYI, not that it's any of your business nor should it have any impact on the validity of
my opinion, I will be 51 years old in five days.

And PS, why don't you leave me alone and provide your own reaction/opinion to the OP instead of derailing the thread by trying to prove everything I
say wrong? Thanks.

No, according to at least one witness it was a GROUP of individuals who were responsible.

Considering the general anonymity of homeless people, I have to wonder if there aren't many more similar crimes happening to homeless people who
don't happen to live in a caring, supportive neighborhood where they were known.

No, according to at least one witness it was a GROUP of individuals who were responsible.

Considering the general anonymity of homeless people, I have to wonder if there aren't many more similar crimes happening to homeless people who
don't happen to live in a caring, supportive neighborhood where they were known.

Okay, point noted, I didn't read that far. But my statement still stands, using exceptions to the rule to define the rule is a logical fallacy.

This is disgusting, and the vast amount of Americans wouldn't condone this.

I completely disagree, I have played videogames all of my life, from the NES to the PS3, From DOS to Windows Vista, and I am not a violent man towards
anything(but do practice martial arts for health), nor are most of my friends. I've fought once in all my years of gaming, and that was when a drunk
at a bonfire knocked another party goer from his chair, threw it in the fire and then started trying to fight and shove said person into the flame.

It's a lack of parenting where I'm from, in conjunction with violent media in any form or social pressure. A trend of people who just don't care
anymore. A good deal of people from my graduating class have had kids, and I've seen them just become completely unattached to anything they do.

You can't just single out something like digital entertainment. However, I wont rule out violent games in the hands of impressionable youths in
already unstructured environments. If mommy and daddy would do what they are supposed to do and nurture, monitor, and take care of their children I
think a good deal of crime from youths and gangs would drop off.

Agreed, more or less. No one thing can be held solely responsible, but many things are pieces of the puzzle that no one seems to want to look at.

I am having trouble expressing my thought here so please bear with me.. I can "see" it so clearly but not quite get it into words correctly...

Every person looks at the one little piece they want to focus on and says "it's not responsible" because they can point to other people who are
influenced by that one piece (but not others) and are not affected negatively.

Any ONE of these things, and many other factors, can easily be taken and "debunked." Of course most of the children who play violent video games do
not transfer to real life violence. BUT .. I believe that they, along with other factors which must also occur to/in the same individual, CAN have an
effect.

Look at the "profile" factors for things that "make" a person likely to become a serial killer. You can look at any one of them and disprove it. I
bet I can find hundreds of kids who were late bedwetters and never killed anyone ... or hundreds of kids who were abused and never killed anyone ..
etc. etc. etc. .. but when you put all of the factors TOGETHER .. you often get a serial killer.

Take all of the factors (some of which we may not even have identified yet) and put them together, and people .. specifically children .. are becoming
increasingly violent.

Yes, there have always been crimes and murder and rape and robberies and witch hunting and so forth .. but those are all MOTIVATED violence. I'm
seeing a disturbing trend: an increase in random, seemingly unmotivated violence. Unless someone had a personal grudge against John, what was the
MOTIVE for burning this homeless person? I say it was for the "thrill," or perhaps an initiation as some have suggested (and those types of
initiation rites are intended to desensitize the new member to violence btw). That type of violence .. violence for no real motive that a so-called
"normal" person could understand .. is on the rise and is what I'm concerned about.

Originally posted by Heike
How about trying to understand what I'm actually saying before attacking me?

How about keeping your negativity and general unhappy relationship with humanity to yourself? I mean from past discussion you seem to be doing just
fine with those around you ( despite the fact that they allegedly 'use you'), help out the needy and do all kinds of humane things? Is it really too
much to ask you not to participate in this culture of negativity about those 'others' that populate other continents and places?

To try to put it in more of a simplistic nutshell for you, I'm saying that I think the constant overstimulation of people (especially
children) by various electronic media is at least partially responsible for the increase in "senseless" random violence, i. e. "thrill
killings."

It was pretty simply the first time round. Basically you work from the mistaken assumption that people are 'overstimulated' ( instead of possibly
claiming that they are becoming misinformed or distracted ) to move to the illogical ( and according to my knowledge plainly incorrect) conclusion
that this causing a escalation in random violence. What increase in random violence are we talking about here?

I'm saying that providing children with "instant gratification" throughout their childhood warps them to expect it and need it, which in
turn leads to frustration and anger when they don't get it. "You can't always get what you want" is not just a good song but a good lesson.
Too many people haven't learned it.

Frustration and anger with not having part of the wealth that you can clearly see around you isn't the real problem even thought i will admit that
burdening children with high expectations contributes in great part to the possibility that they will never enjoy what they get or achieve. That being
said senseless violence and immoral behaviour based on not having your 'needs' met has far more to do with American national security states
interventionist policies and propaganda ( you can do what you want to others) than it has to do overstimulation or high expectations. This is made
obvious by the fact that violence isn't anything near as prevalent in other industrialized western societies.

That's all. And how is that bashing "human nature"?

By presuming that having higher expectations and stimulation levels leads to random violence as if our brains are too primitive to handle all that
input without resulting in a chaotic response. Fact is that Swedish, Swiss, French, Germans, Japanese and Korean children and young adults are all
subjected to the same levels of stimulation without these alleged violent responses so maybe you can try again and ask what's wrong with American
brains/culture?

And FYI, not that it's any of your business nor should it have any impact on the validity of my opinion, I will be 51 years old in five days.

That's so but it will have a impact on how often i respond to your posts. Since you have a additional 25 odd years to discuss all that is wrong with
the world it would be quite the coup if i could somehow counter some of those perceptions that have led you to this cynical views of the rest of the
species. At least you don't hate yourself so we can work from that heaps of self love that you accumulated over the years.

And PS, why don't you leave me alone and provide your own reaction/opinion to the OP instead of derailing the thread by trying to prove
everything I say wrong? Thanks.

Well i don't have enough hours in the day to respond to all the negativity ( to say nothing of the ignorance/misinformation it's generally based
on) so frankly i would be more than glad to take you up on that offer provided that you meet me half way and think up some positive things to say
about your fellow human beings.

I'm entitled to my opinion and my views just like everyone else here. I'm sorry that you seem to be so offended by them, but you have no right to
ask me to "keep them to myself." I am a member of ATS in good standing and have every right to express my views here.

I am sorry that you don't see the escalation of violence, especially from children. A quick look at even Wiki's timeline of school shootings should
concern you, and five minutes with Google will turn up hundreds of articles about children (minors) committing more violent crimes.

You refuse to understand what I'm actually trying to say, and it's pointless for me to go back and dig up references to "prove" every point I use
such as the generally understood fact that exposure to images of violence desensitizes people/children to violence. Regardless, we are now off
topic.

Please limit further discussion to the topic of this thread. If you simply MUST argue with me, you can u2u me, or start your own BTS thread "What's
wrong with Heike" or something and I'll argue with you about my negativity and etc. there. But please stop hijacking other peoples' threads just to
try to point out to everyone how awful - and wrong - I am.

Originally posted by Heike
I'm entitled to my opinion and my views just like everyone else here. I'm sorry that you seem to be so offended by them, but you have no right to
ask me to "keep them to myself." I am a member of ATS in good standing and have every right to express my views here.

You are as entitled to your opinion as i am to disagree with it however often i find it to be so. I have every right to ask you to stop spreading
negativity and you have every right to ignore me and to keep 'telling it as it is' ( as everyone seems to think their doing) thus begging a
response.

I am sorry that you don't see the escalation of violence, especially from children.

I am sorry that you believe everything you hear on the news; it must really be depressing to have no context and to think that what you see is
actually trends.

A quick look at even Wiki's timeline of school shootings should concern you, and five minutes with Google will turn up hundreds of articles
about children (minors) committing more violent crimes.

And before google and wiki? Who normally does the shooting in these instances; the bullies or the bullied? Don't you even understand that if these
cases are as clear cut as some propose that they are merely the result of kids seeking retribution for perceived wrongs? I mean i vividly remember
school and despite it being a relatively closed community there was no lack of bullying and violence the difference being that the bullied didn't
consider or had access to the means to seek retribution. In fact i don't mind the leveling of the playing field.

You refuse to understand what I'm actually trying to say, and it's pointless for me to go back and dig up references to "prove" every
point I use such as the generally understood fact that exposure to images of violence desensitizes people/children to violence. Regardless, we are now
off topic.

We are by no means off topic. You insist that the media's bias in reporting crime 'proves' that society is becoming more violent when that just
isn't the case. It's all about fear and your falling right into the trap leading to your views on humanity. That's what they want you to believe (
divide and conquer?) but apparently that suits your interest as well.

Please limit further discussion to the topic of this thread. If you simply MUST argue with me, you can u2u me, or start your own BTS thread
"What's wrong with Heike" or something and I'll argue with you about my negativity and etc. there. But please stop hijacking other peoples'
threads just to try to point out to everyone how awful - and wrong - I am.

No thanks. This discussion is still very much on topic and your still very much sticking to your guns and misrepresenting the legitimate desperation (
why am i even at school when there's no jobs?) that large sections of the American society is being subjected to.

Originally posted by StellarX
you have every right to ignore me and to keep 'telling it as it is' ( as everyone seems to think their doing) thus begging a response.

Well, instead of pointing out all the wrong answers, why don't you tell it as it really is, then, since you seem so sure that you know? What is the
real problem? Why do you think someone(s) found it necessary to burn a harmless homeless man alive?

I am sorry that you believe everything you hear on the news; it must really be depressing to have no context and to think that what you see is
actually trends.

Not true at all. I believe relatively little that I "hear" on the news. I have worked on and off with "troubled children" since the early 80's
and I know from personal experience and from discussions with other professionals in the field that these teenagers and children are (in general) more
violent, more aggressive, and more dangerous than they were 20 or 25 years ago.

And, if you aren't basing your information on MSM news, then please tell us what your sources are. According to your profile you are in South Africa,
so how do you know what is really going on in the United States?

Don't you even understand that if these cases are as clear cut as some propose that they are merely the result of kids seeking retribution
for perceived wrongs?

IF is such a huge word to have only two letters, isn't it? I don't think these cases are that clear cut. I was bullied in school too, and I had
ready access to knives and my Dad's gun, but it never once occurred to me to use either on my perpetrators. Futhermore, retribution for bullying
provides no explanation for the 10 year old boy who stabbed his own grandmother to get the $10 that was in her purse, the 14 year old who beat and
kicked a 12 year old severely enough to put him in the hospital with broken bones in order to take his tennis shoes, or the group of teenagers (12 -
16) who cut open a live dog and removed its stomach and intestines "just to see what would happen to it." And these are NOT examples from MSM or
news, they are cases that I have personally seen.

You insist that the media's bias in reporting crime 'proves' that society is becoming more violent when that just isn't the case.

Again, that's an incorrect assumption on your part. Based on personal experience, the collective experience of other professionals, and what I've
seen and read in professional journals and other resources, society IS becoming more violent, and the perpetrators of extreme violence - such as the
burning alive of this homeless man - are getting younger and younger.

misrepresenting the legitimate desperation ( why am i even at school when there's no jobs?) that large sections of the American society is
being subjected to.

What? Where are you getting THIS information? News perhaps? I can't go anywhere in the rural towns I live near without seeing "Help Wanted" signs
posted everywhere. The agency I work for is hiring. The fast food joints and restaurants are hiring. Atwoods is hiring. Walmart is hiring. American
Steel is hiring. If kids with criminal records and juvy time can "graduate" from the agency I work at, go to Job Corps, and come back a year later
telling us how great they're doing and all about the job they have at which they're making more money than I make, I'm not buying your garbage
about "legitimate desperation."

Why are you so focused on what's going on in the US anyway? Isn't there enough trouble and violence in South Africa for you to be worried about
without trying to tell Americans how to fix their social problems?

Originally posted by Heike
Well, instead of pointing out all the wrong answers, why don't you tell it as it really is, then, since you seem so sure that you know? What is the
real problem? Why do you think someone(s) found it necessary to burn a harmless homeless man alive?

Because they can? Because they wanted to and thought they could get away with it? Why do the actions of minuscule proportion of a population need a
sociological explanation? Why would anyone be insensible enough to attempt extrapolation in this instance when violence against others ( with or
without 'proper' motivation; self defense etc) is certainly not a evil in itself? Why would burning concern you so when not so long ago the
'governments' ( usually unelected) of various nations publicly tortured individuals in ways that doesn't make immolation seem very strange? Why
will our society ( now that we have gained so much more control over public affairs) go after these criminals with everything we have? Because society
is more immoral or more just? So much for that argument.

Not true at all. I believe relatively little that I "hear" on the news. I have worked on and off with "troubled children" since the early
80's and I know from personal experience and from discussions with other professionals in the field that these teenagers and children are (in
general) more violent, more aggressive, and more dangerous than they were 20 or 25 years ago.

Well since i feel you have mostly misrepresented ( no, I'm sure you really believe it ) human traits and 'nature' i will simply counter your
'experience' with the known fact that children today have the same weak impulse control of two decades ago while having easier access to weapons.
What would have been a cut or bruise two decades ago is quite possibly a gunshot wound today. When we take into account the destruction of the
American economy ( stagnant wages for the majority for three decades), the longer work hours and other societal pressures all you can really say is
that youth offenders have become better armed and thus more 'efficient' in causing intentional or unintentional harm. As for the criminals
statistics indicating a far, far higher arrest rates this is hardly surprising given the explosion in policing presence and things such as the 'war
on drugs'; what can you expect in a police state?

And, if you aren't basing your information on MSM news, then please tell us what your sources are. According to your profile you are in South
Africa, so how do you know what is really going on in the United States?

I read studies commissioned by people who study these matters? Is this really going to be your defense; that i'm not there so i can't know? I
suppose you hate the study of history, recent or otherwise?

Look up Annette Fuentes, National Center for Juvenile Justice etc.

Or if you would rather me do the research for you ( and you could consider believing federal crime statistics) here is a article about the violent
modern entertainment culture:

IF is such a huge word to have only two letters, isn't it? I don't think these cases are that clear cut. I was bullied in school too, and I
had ready access to knives and my Dad's gun, but it never once occurred to me to use either on my perpetrators.

Possibly not but then that's what happens when bullies reduce one's self esteem to levels where you, for lack of confidence, don't even consider
a violent and or disproportionate response. I don't remember that far back so either i have made my peace or I'm it's some kind of dissociation and
i might 'erupt' ( haha) one day. My most common violent response to anger ( ai, losing control) is to punch a wall which has the added effect of
rewarding me with one of the types of pain that a loss of a self control normally results in.

Futhermore, retribution for bullying provides no explanation for the 10 year old boy who stabbed his own grandmother to get the $10 that was
in her purse, the 14 year old who beat and kicked a 12 year old severely enough to put him in the hospital with broken bones in order to take his
tennis shoes, or the group of teenagers (12 - 16) who cut open a live dog and removed its stomach and intestines "just to see what would happen to
it." And these are NOT examples from MSM or news, they are cases that I have personally seen.

Stabbed his grandmother for ten $? So now mental retardation is going to serve as evidence for a violent youth? Maybe he just wanted to play tennis
badly? As for the poor dog in some countries they are eaten and if those kids watched discovery channel and it's 'violent' bloody medical drama's
and or documentaries they would have known what happened. So basically ( provided those instances are all in context; the grandmother didn't take
his money because she was starving, the two kids where not fighting because of something entirely different ( hell i could have landed in hospital at
least once if i had though to admit to how much it hurt) and the bunch of kids didn't have anything TV or video games to keep them busy.

Lets condemn all of the worlds youth because of these three example's.....

Again, that's an incorrect assumption on your part. Based on personal experience, the collective experience of other professionals, and what
I've seen and read in professional journals and other resources, society IS becoming more violent, and the perpetrators of extreme violence - such as
the burning alive of this homeless man - are getting younger and younger.

Not according to the actual crime statistics:

The country's overall crime rate is displayed in two indices. The violent crime index comprises homicide, forcible rape, robbery and assault.
The property crime index consists of burglary, larceny/theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson. Statistics for index offenses are generally available
for the country as a whole, all fifty states and all communities within the United States with 10,000 or more residents. The crime rate is measured by
the number of crimes being reported per 100,000 people. While the crime rate had risen sharply in the late 1960s and early 1970s, bringing it to a
constant all-time high during much of the 1970s and 1980s, it has drastically declined ever since 1991. One hypothesis suggests there is a causal
relationship between legalized abortion and the drop in crime during the 1990s.[3] In 2004 America's crime rate is roughly the same as in 1970, with
the homicide rate being at its lowest level since 1965. Overall, the national crime rate was 3982 crimes per 100,000 residents, down from 4852 crimes
per 100,000 residents thirty years earlier in 1974 (-17.6%).[4] The severity of crime in international comparison depends on the nature of the crimes
considered in such comparison. For example, while the homicide and violent crime rates of the United States were much higher than those of Canada,
property crime rates in the US were considerably lower. The overall crime rate in the United States is lower than that of Canada.[5][6] Additionally
there tend to be great regional differences within the U.S. with New England having a violent crime and homicide rate comparable to that of most other
developed nations, while southern states were among the most violent.

I don't want to be snippy ( the FBI and national data collection centers might all be conspiring and or changing the definitions ) but where else
would you get the idea that violent crimes are increasing when homicides are declining DESPITE the destruction of the US economy over the last thirty
years?

What? Where are you getting THIS information? News perhaps? I can't go anywhere in the rural towns I live near without seeing "Help Wanted"
signs posted everywhere.

So can i but i'm not a slave and i wont aid a broken system propagate itself any more than i absolutely have to.

The agency I work for is hiring. The fast food joints and restaurants are hiring. Atwoods is hiring. Walmart is hiring.

And they don't pay anything other than a minimal living wage with ZERO job security.

American Steel is hiring.

Managers perhaps. Where have YOU been? Which American manufacturing industry have in the last ten years increased it's number of employees?

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.